Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Rjack is trying to show that the GPL contains illegal terms.
>
> > Indeed, a sine qua non of contract doctrine is a shared 
> > expectation that the parties will execute the contract in accord 
> > with the law.... 
> > http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/143/143.F3d.1260.97-15781.html
>
> This is a case about an unlicensed 15-year-old driver who killed 
> somebody and then wanted to get the benefit of somebody else's 
> insurance policy. Hard to find any similar facts here. Are you 
> claiming, Rjack, that somebody copying GPL software beyond the 
> scope of the license is like an unlicensed driver? If so, the case 
> goes against you, because the unlicensed driver lost the case.
>
> On the other hand, if you intended this case to simply provide a 
> general statement of the law, then I fail to see how it proves that
>  the GPL contains any illegal terms.

I am witness to your failings.

> Same problem with all the other references.
>
> If the GPL contains any illegal terms, it should be easy to prove 
> this. Just find some statute or case law according to which 
> GPL-like permissions are illegal. If you can find none, then 
> perhaps the GPL does not contain illegal terms.

During the last few hundred or so postings to this group, you have
consistently ignored the reasons I have cited for the lack of
enforceability of the GPL license terms under the common law of
contracts and through preemption by U.S. copyright law. Since I have
cited a plethora of U.S. statute and case law supporting my arguments,
you are well informed as to their nature and substance. You need only
review the messages to this group to refresh your memory.

You may continuously intone phrases such as "*If* the GPL contains any
illegal terms..." and "...*perhaps* the GPL does not contain illegal
terms" until hell freezes over and nothing will ever be resolved. The
"ifs" and "perhaps" lead only to repetition. Likewise, debating
semantics concerning the meaning of "illegal" or similar words leads
only to repetition.

If you wish to claim the GPL is enforceable then you may wish to
present your own arguments as to why it is, just as Eben "a license is
not a contract" Moglen did and we'll let the readers of the World
decide.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)