Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-881.pdf
Oh, goody! I love when your postings militate against your own thesis.
Read the footnote on page 24:
"a fair and equitable result will be preferred over a harsh and
unreasonable one," and "an interpretation that will produce an
inequitable result will be adopted only when the contract so
expressly and unequivocally so provides that there is no other
reasonable interpretation to be given it."
Peirce v. Peirce, 994 P.2d 193, 198 (Utah 2000)
This reflects what I've said before. No matter how GPL-skeptics twist
and spin, the plain language and clear intention of the GPL are going
to inform court decisions, and courts will enforce the conditions of
the GPL as written. We've already seen this with the CAFC with respect
to the Artistic License, and we've seen that Sam's lawyers have no qualms
about treating the GPL as valid. No bad-faith code grabber will prevail.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
