Hyman Rosen <[email protected]> writes: > On 2/3/2010 11:06 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> What makes you think that the controversial aspects of the GPL is just >> void/unenforcable nonsense which can be safely ignored by the parties in >> making the contract? > > The fact that companies which have ignored the GPL have been sued and > subsequently have come into compliance.
Reread the question. >> Only enforceable obligations can be breached silly Hyman. The >> unenforceable nonsense can not be breached and is not part of the >> contract. > > Fortunately, the terms of the GPL are enforceable. Actually, they aren't, because the GPL is not a contract. But _copyright_ is enforceable. And the _conditions_ of the GPL can be _checked_ in order to establish whether its _permissions_ can be made used of. The relative dearth of court precedents concerned with the GPL rather than copyright itself is due to that. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
