"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: [...] > The GPL is not a contract,
Sez who? )Besides you and other brainwashed GNUtians, that is.) Here's what the FSF own hired lawyers said in court of law. http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf <quote> the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls." </quote> See? The CONTRACT controls. > neither is the MIT license. Both are contracts conveying rights reserved to copyright owners subject to contractual conditions and covenants. > Sub-license means exactly what > it means, licensing a work under one or more licenses. It doesn't mean that. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
