Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: > > [... GPL invalidity ...] > >> That paper is a link to a critique of the decision, >> not to a court decision. The court decision held that >> without accepting the GPL, there is no other right to >> distribute. Until an actual other case or appeal finds >> differently, the decision stands, regardless of whether >> or not some commenting judge likes it, and the GPL is >> legal and distribution of GPLed software is an implicit >> agreement to the license. > > Suppose that the GPLv4 will include a "condition" to make available > not only the source code but also a bunch of child pornography photos.
Suppose it won't matter because World War III is going at full tilt. > According to drunken bavarian judges from district court Munich I > (senselessly parroting bizarre "legal construction" offered by Welte's > attorneys from ifross.de), not making available child pornography > would then result in copyright liability just like not making > available source code. Uh yes. No valid license, and default copyright rules set in. Presumably child pornography would not help either since such a condition would be "sittenwidrig", and the respective license invalid as a consequence. But an invalid license means just a lack of extra permission, nothing less, nothing more. > Utter idiots. Just like you, Hyman. Pretty much like him, yes. Which is not all too impressive for the level of idiocy. For a real blundering idiot, there is just no alternative to you. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
