gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: More FSF hypocrisy


From: Rjack
Subject: Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:22:19 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes, following up to Rjack:

How can there be a contract when there's been no agreement between the parties involved?....

You want to argue contract formation. I have already told you about
one hundred times that courts use a fact based analysis to determine
whether a contract does or does not exist.

What's so hard to understand about "No formal granting of a license
is necessary in order to give it effect. Any language used by the
owner. . ."? If "no formal language" may form a contract, then what
effect do you think "formal" language (like the GPL) has?

Rjack already lost this argument under a different subject heading. Each time he loses an argument he reposts it under a new subject heading. See the previous subject heading "Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..".

Rjack found cases where the court used contract law to determine
 a remedy for a license violation. Seeing the word "contract", he
 came to the erroneous conclusion that, just because you can base
a remedy on contract law, therefore there is no difference between a license and a contract.

Rahul you should stick to putting words in your *own* mouth -- not
mine.

Let's try some simple set theory, so as to help you understand why
you are simply blathering nonsense:

Consider set A as the set of all contracts. Consider set A' as the
set of all copyright licenses. Now A' is a proper subset of A.
Savvy Kemo Sabe?

Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is
probably the country's most respected intellectual property expert.
He ruled in 2003:

“If a breach of contract (and a copyright license is just a type of
contract). . .”; In re Aimster, 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003).

Perhaps you don't want to accept it Rahul but a copyright license
is a *kind* of contract -- just like a lease to rent an apartment
is a *kind* of contract. They are both subsets of the set of all
kinds of contracts.

IF A COPYRIGHT LICENSE EXISTS, ITS LANGUAGE WILL BE INTERPRETED AS A
CONTRACT IN DETERMINING ITS COVENANTS FOR PURPOSES OF BREACH AND
THEN EXAMINED FOR LANGUAGE DETERMINING SCOPE FOR PURPOSES OF
INFRINGEMENT.

And therefore, you no longer need an offer an an acceptance to form a contract.

That's bullshit Rahul. I never claimed that. Courts read the
language in context to determine those things.


So now, let me predict: We will soon see Rjack repost the same flawed argument under yet another subject heading.

So now let me predict that Rahul will soon make a fool out of
himself again. Probably in this thread. . .

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]