Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] > We can agree to disagree, You can disagree with the entire US federal judiciary and professional lawyers hired to defend FSF and IBM*** all you want. That's apart from academic legal community (except Moglen The Bullshit Rapper, of course).
----- "Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits." http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html is simply legal nonsense. ====== Here's an email exchange with RMS: "I assume, however, that at least some people want the GPL to be binding--nothing can make it binding except a claim of contract." http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html -- the respondent's email address resolves to: MICHAEL H. DAVIS, (Professor of Law) Cleveland State University. Education: Occidental College (B.A.,1967); Hofstra Law School (J.D., 1975); Harvard Law School (LL.M., 1979). ====== Perhaps further consideration should be given to: "(A``non-contractual copyright permission'' would be some sort of license that does not involve a contract I suppose, but that is not a well defined term.)" http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/diritto/2002-February/000641.html -- the respondent's email address resolves to: PETER D. JUNGER Professor of Law Emeritus Case Western Reserve University College: Harvard College, A.B. 1955 Law School: Harvard Law School, LL.B. (magna cum laude) 1958 ====== How about this: "The GPL IS a contract. Calling it a license simply describes the type of contract it is." http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01522.html -- the respondent's email address resolves to: ROD DIXON J.D. LL.M. Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law, Camden, New Jersey, Fall 1999 to present. EDUCATION: LL.M. (with Distinction), Georgetown University Law Center, 1998. J.D., George Washington University Law School, 1992. M.A., University of Pittsburgh, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 1986. B.A., University of Pittsburgh, College of Arts and Sciences, 1984. ====== Moglen makes extraordinary claims about the GPL, so why doesn't he come forward with the appropriate legal citations? Moglen is a J.D. with a Ph.D. in history and not an LL.M. He would not even be accepted as qualified for Professorship at many institutions. What qualifies his word alone as "legal authority"? ----- ***) REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION'S REASSERTED MOTION TO DISMISS: "as is evident from the ProCD case Plaintiff cites, copyrights may be licensed by a uniform contract effective against all who choose to use it. (Response at 6) (citing ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 1454 (7th Cir.1996).) The court in ProCD held that a "shrinkwrap" software license, that is, a license that accompanies software limiting its use, is an effective contract under the UCC against anyone who receives the terms of the license and uses the software. Id. at 1452. The court also held that state enforcement of such contracts under the UCC would not be preempted by the Copyright Act or 17 U.S.C. ยง 301. Id. The GPL, like the shrinkwrap license in ProCD, is a license applicable to anyone who receives its terms and chooses to use it, and by using it, accepts the terms under which the software was offered. Id.." regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
