rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > John Hasler wrote: >> David Kastrup writes: >>> An "illegal document"? Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on the >>> GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be >>> pornography or similar. >> >> Well, the doofuses at SCO claimed GPLv2 was "unconstitutional". The phrase >> "illegal document" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though, at least >> under US law. > > A document (instrument) is illegal if it is used for some some purpose > contrary to established law. > > > For example a document to consummate a violation of law: > > 1. illegal immigration documents > 2. counterfit bonds or false ID's > 3. contract to perpetrate or induce a tort (GPL3)
Those are _invalid_ (let us just disregard the nonsensical parenthetical remark on point 3). The possession or creation or dissemination or employment for a particular purpose of such documents may be illegal. The documents themselves don't break laws. People do. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
