Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-881.pdf (and Linux derivative^Wderived
work as whole.)
He he.
I like footnote 9 about New York law on preambles and other pefatory
language in a contract aiding its interpretation. :-)
regards,
alexander.
IBM argues throughout its MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION that the GPL license
is a contract.
For example IBM argues forcefully at footnote 8 on page 22:
"SCO's statement. . . [N]ot only flies in the face of the unambiguous
language of the GPL and standard rules of contract interpretation. . ."
Does this mean that the esteemed Eben Moglen, RMS and his faithful
disciples have simply been blathering reams of FUD when claiming that
the "The GPL is a License, Not a Contract"?
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
