David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... GPL ...]
There is no contract
Let the judges in Munich and Frankfurt know about that, dear
GNUtian dak.
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
(in English)
http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf
http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
Pg 11, my dear. "Die GPL ... offer ... acceptance ... § 151
BGB."
Both panels erred regarding the relevance of assumed invalidity
of the GPL 2b***, however.
(From licensed German legal professional):
Uh, you cite a comment dissenting with a court decision as
precedence?
That's not particularly impressive. Not even for your standards.
Dissenting opinions are closely scrutinized amd many times highly
regarded for their legal scholarship.
How about reverting to citing some non-connected court cases
and/or adding LOL? It still makes you look like an idiot without
a clue, but it is funnier.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
