On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At no point did I assume that the GPL was a statute, nor a > magical creature. > > In other words, you're begging the question. (And arguing a > straw man.)
I stand by my man, straw or otherwise. In any given jurisdiction there are rather clear rules about how to extract meaning from the available evidence of a contract between two parties (or more, if it's a contract to form a corporation; thanks, Batist). If you profess to be making a legal argument, then the rules, if any, that you seem to be using are more appropriate for a statute or a magical creature of copyright law. If you do not profess to be making a legal argument, then we have nothing to disagree about. Not even the Supreme Court Of Your Choice has the authority to set those rules aside and make a contract mean what they think it ought to mean; if they do, that's not a legal system, it's despotic prerogative (cf. Lord Camden in Donaldson v. Beckett). And arguing in willful ignorance of those rules is guaranteed to produce false conclusions with a document as deliberately misleading as the GPL. Don't think it's deliberate? Maybe the Indiana court will have something to say about that. (And no, I have absolutely nothing to do with that suit.) Cheers, - Michael
