RJack <user@example.net> writes:
As a delusional GPL advocate you choose to deliberately ignore the
plain consequences of U.S. Copyright law.
"delusional" and "deliberately" are not quite compatible.
The GPL is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301, it is unenforceable under
contract law and is a misuse of copyright.
Now _that_ is at its surface delusional, but likely a deliberate
utterance of a mixture of nonsense, non-sequiturs and half-truths.
The GPL is not preempted by any law, since a law can't "preempt" a
permission. It _is_ unenforceable and states so itself: the licensee
_retains_ the option to use it or ignore it, at will. However,
_copyright_ is enforceable under _state_ law. If you want to make
use of the GPL in order _not_ to be liable to state law for certain
uses of the copyrighted material, you have to adhere to the
conditions of the GPL. In that case, your compliance with the GPL's
conditions will be held to pretty much the same standards as contract
law, with some exceptions pertaining to the difference between
licenses and contracts.
All this discussion of the legal consequences of the GPL is
delusional tilting at Windmills. Even a dysfunctional mind is a
terrible thing to waste.
So why are you wasting away in that manner?