[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Wallace's reply brief
From: |
Ferd Burfel |
Subject: |
Re: Wallace's reply brief |
Date: |
Wed, 2 Aug 2006 17:53:13 -0500 |
"Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de> wrote in message
44D05746.919A1DAA@web.de">news:44D05746.919A1DAA@web.de...
>
> Ferd Burfel wrote:
> [...]
>> A contract indeed can not bind a "non-party", but a "third-party" does
>> NOT
>> always equal "non-party". While a "third-party" that does not accept the
>> terms of the license (or is not even aware of it) would be a "non-party",
>> a
>> "third-party" that DOES accept the license would become a "party" to the
>> license by accepting it's terms, and would therefore be bound by it.
>
> That's all fine and dandy,
Glad you agree.
> Contracts, by contrast,
> generally affect only their parties; strangers may do as they please,
That's all fine and dandy, too. But a third-party choosing to accept the
terms of the license is no longer a stranger, and becomes a party to it.
> 92. It can be argued that this might change if, in effect, no third
> party can avoid being bound by the contract terms in order to use the
> information.
Something like the way no third-party can avoid being bound by the terms of
the GPL in order to receive permission to modify and distribute GPLed code?
Is Wallace really helping his case by mentioning this?
All throughout this case, Wallace seems to be cherry-picking quotes from
various cases out of context, and applying his own legal conclusions, even
if they are sometimes contrary to the case he is quoting. He has ignored
strong hints from the court as to changes he might make to be sucessful.
It's almost like he is trying to lose for some reason. A backhanded attempt
to create a GPL court win?
He really should have sought professional help before filing this case.
Legal or otherwise.
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, (continued)
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/01
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Ferd Burfel, 2006/08/01
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/02
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/08/02
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/08/02
- Message not available
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, David Kastrup, 2006/08/02
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, John Hasler, 2006/08/02
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, David Kastrup, 2006/08/02
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/02
- Re: Wallace's reply brief,
Ferd Burfel <=
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Ferd Burfel, 2006/08/02
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/03
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Ferd Burfel, 2006/08/03
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, John Hasler, 2006/08/03
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, David Kastrup, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, David Kastrup, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, John Hasler, 2006/08/04