Rjack <[email protected]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > >> Also there is no "evasion of an interpretation of the GPL" since >> the GPL is not even under dispute. It would only be under >> dispute if the defendants claimed compliance as a defense. The >> cases up to now have been cut&dry sufficiently for that not to be >> a viable option. >> >> So even if the SFLC carried on, they'd get an interpretation of >> the validity of copyright law in general rather than of the GPL. >> Nothing interesting in that. >> > > Would the GPL be construed as a contract and interpreted under state > law?
Do you even read what you are replying to? If the defendant does not claim compliance, the GPL is not relevant to the case. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
