[email protected] (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > David Kastrup <[email protected]> writes: > >>Rjack <[email protected]> writes: > >>>> 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.... > ... >>> 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. > > I think Rjack has a valid point that a court might well treat the GPL as > a contract in such a case.
Huh? You can't be held to a contract you did not sign. > But the defendant, if he loses, still loses big, as shown below. Sure, but the validity of the GPL does not figure in the game. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
