Rjack is trying to show that the GPL contains illegal terms. >Indeed, a sine qua non of contract doctrine is a shared expectation >that the parties will execute the contract in accord with the law.... >http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/143/143.F3d.1260.97-15781.html
This is a case about an unlicensed 15-year-old driver who killed somebody and then wanted to get the benefit of somebody else's insurance policy. Hard to find any similar facts here. Are you claiming, Rjack, that somebody copying GPL software beyond the scope of the license is like an unlicensed driver? If so, the case goes against you, because the unlicensed driver lost the case. On the other hand, if you intended this case to simply provide a general statement of the law, then I fail to see how it proves that the GPL contains any illegal terms. Same problem with all the other references. If the GPL contains any illegal terms, it should be easy to prove this. Just find some statute or case law according to which GPL-like permissions are illegal. If you can find none, then perhaps the GPL does not contain illegal terms. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
