David Kastrup wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes:
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > [...]
> >> According to this paper,
> >> <http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf>
> >> the GPL is not a contract.
> >
> > "Part IV proposes that the GPL is a failed contract, which lacks only
> > consideration. It advocates enforcing the license through state
> > promissory estoppel law and the Copyright Act."
> >
> > LOL. I propose Sapna Kumar is just crazy. The GPL is full of
> > consideration on both sides.
> >
> > Licensor's consideration is a promise not to sue for copyright
> > infringment.
> >
> > Licensee's consideration is all the enforcable obligations imposed by
> > the license.
> You are confusing "consideration" with "contribution".  Look up the
> "consideration" in a law dictionary, it is legalese.

Uh moron dak.


"Consideration is the central concept in the common law of contracts and
is required, in most cases, for a contract to be enforceable.
Consideration is the price one pays for another's promise. It can take a
number of forms: money, property, a promise, the doing of an act, or
even refraining from doing an act. In broad terms, if one agrees to do
something he was not otherwise legally obligated to do, it may be said
that he has given consideration. "

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to