Barry Margolin wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
avesty writes:
I like the idea of the GPL and what it stands for, just not this apparent
openness to 'interpretation'.
Then you won't like any legal document of any kind.
It seems there should be definitive defendable answers to questions like
the ones I have...
...
That's the other reason I asked if there were lawyers that specialize
in this sort of thing...
If you expect a definitive defendable answer from a lawyer you are going to
be disappointed.
And asking on Usenet is definitely not the way to get it. No reputable
lawyer would express a detailed opinion in this way.
And asking on Usenet is definitely not the way to get it. No reputable
lawyer would express a detailed opinion in this way.
"Reputable lawyer" is statistical oxymoron:
"75 to 90 percent of American trial lawyers are incompetent, dishonest
or both." --- the late Warren Burger, Chief Justice of the United States
Supreme Court.
Regards,
rjack
--- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by
ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi
Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit 1995) ---
--- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. ยงยง 101- 1332,
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal
courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the
relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v.
Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit 2006) ---
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
