Re: SFLC is SOL

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 4/13/2010 9:20 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936

dtemeles@nvalaw.com is a real "attorney spending a great deal of time on
software related IP licensing and litigation matters".

http://nvalaw.com/

> 
> I can quote meaningless random papers too!
> <http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf>
>      But no matter how one construes the GPL, the requirement of
>      consideration is not met. Though the licensor’s restrictions
>      in rights might benefit the licensor, the GPL does not state
>      whether those restrictions would translate into consideration
>      and if consideration would benefit the licensor or a third
>      party. The lack of a meeting of minds makes the GPL contract
>      theory fly in the face of the UCC, state common law, and common
>      sense. This leads us back to Moglen’s now plausible assertion
>      that the GPL is not a contract.

http://www.sapnakumar.org/

sapnakumar.org is just yet another crazy academic akin to Moglen and
Lessig.

The stuff from crazy academics akin to Moglen and Lessig such as
sapnakumar.org is indeed mostly meaningless bullshit, I agree.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)