Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <[email protected]> wrote:
Section 5 of the GPL is legal nonsense.
I think you may have mentioned this before, once or twice.
The GPL was formulated by experienced lawyers, with good
understanding of copyright and contract law.
The GPL was formulated by Richard Stallman, a socialist radical who
had no legal experience whatsoever. As to Stallman's resorting to
copious legal advice here's some from Law Professor Micheal Davis of
Clevland State University that Richard chose to ignore in 1999:
"So. Why is this an issue? To allow the GPL legal effect but to
avoid some real or imagined consequences of it being treated as a
contract by the law? I'm afraid you can't have one without the
other; to repeat, if it's enforceable, it is, in essence, and in the
end, a contract."
http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html
Do bear in mind that the law doesn't always mean what it seems to
to the legally inexperienced.
It seems overwhelmingly likely that you are simply mistaken.
Does that include the Supreme Court of the United States and the
federal courts of appeals?
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
