On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:32:52 -0400, Rjack wrote: > Thufir Hawat wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote: >> >>>>> IF A COPYRIGHT LICENSE EXISTS, ITS LANGUAGE WILL BE INTERPRETED AS A >>>>> CONTRACT IN DETERMINING ITS COVENANTS FOR PURPOSES OF BREACH AND >>>>> THEN EXAMINED FOR LANGUAGE DETERMINING SCOPE FOR PURPOSES OF >>>>> INFRINGEMENT. >>>> >>>> Assuming this is so, what's your point? >>> The point of an original newsgroup post seems to evolvs with the >>> number of posts to the thread. I think we were discussing legal >>> enforcement of the GPL. >> >> >> If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA, in >> your view? >> >> > The GPL contains unenforceable terms.
When other EULA are ignored by the end users, the response is typically copyright infringement, right? -Thufir _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
