Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 4:23 PM, RJack wrote:
Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and
operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright
contracts, you will forever remain confused concerning licensing
It is you who are incapable of understanding it, as demonstrated by
the fact that a court sees things our way:
<http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> The clear
language of the Artistic License creates conditions to protect the
economic rights at issue in the granting of a public license. These
conditions govern the rights to modify and distribute the computer
programs and files included in the downloadable software package.
I had no idea that "GPL" was an acronym for "Artistic License".
Moooooooooooooooooving the goalposts again Hyman? ROFL.
Not only are DAK and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning
and operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts,
they are utterly confused about the difference between "Article III"
standing and "statutory" standing.
GPL sec. 2(b) is not a condition precedent and an author who releases
source code under the GPL has no Article III standing to enforce it.
The GPL is a purported copyright license that is preempted by 17 USC
sec. 301(a) and is unenforceable under the common law of contracts and
provides no Article III standing for users.
Hyman Rosen: "I never lose I just moooooooooooooooooove the goalposts."
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list