David Kastrup wrote:
Hyman Rosen <[email protected]> writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
So what is your point?
He believes that one may avail himself of the copying and
distribution permissions of the GPL while not honoring its
requirements, because he believes it's the requirements which
are unenforceable while the permissions remain. It's incorrect
and more than a little strange to believe such a thing, but
that's what it is.
Sure, but the hollering about "GPL is not enforceable" is beside
the point. It is not enforceable. Take it or leave it. Your
choice. But before court, you'll have to tell the judge what
choice you made. And then explain how your actions are
consistent with your choice.
I am beginning to believe that you *really* don't understand that a
U.S. court will refuse to enforce an illegal contract term against a
defendant regardless of whether the defendant agreed to the term or
not. What is so hard to grasp concerning the principle that an
illegal contract term is construed against the drafter of the contract?
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
