Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> GPL is a license, not a contract. > > Yeah. > > LOL. > > Heck, why are you, German GNUtian dak, still pretending to be in denial > regarding the judgments of the courts in Munich and Frankfurt about > contractual status of the GPL, stupid dak?
Sigh. License adherence is held to the same standards as contract adherence. The difference is that a) it is optional for the licensee to make use of the license b) invalid terms don't invalidate the rest of the license even without salvatory clauses c) contractual penalty damages (Vertragsstrafen) can't be claimed As long as those particulars are not involved, the license text is interpreted like a contract, namely with the standards of contract law. Without being one. If I feed dog food to a cat, that does not make the cat a dog. If the food has pieces of razor in it, it is not a valid defense for the producer that I was not supposed to feed a cat with it. Since for the relevant problem, the standards of cat and dog food can be considered sufficiently similar. > This was pretty much the only *uncontested* fact in both cases, silly > dak. > > Please elaborate. Why should the defendant contest having a license? That would not help. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
