Rahul Dhesi wrote:
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
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack wrote:
>
>> Sigh. Since the GPL has never been reviewed by a court with proper
>> jurisdiction, you're going to look for a loong time. Since you
>> obviously don't understand what an "illegal" term means in general
>> contract interpretation
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
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack wrote:
> Sigh. Since the GPL has never been reviewed by a court with proper
> jurisdiction, you're going to look for a loong time. Since you
> obviously don't understand what an "illegal" term means in general
> contract interpretation your quest is ultimately futile
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack has outdone himself.
I objected to his quoting answers.com and merriam-webster.com to
show that the GPL contains illegal terms. I suggested that, since
we have a couple of hundred years or more of case law discussing
when a contract should be unenforceable due to ille
Rjack has outdone himself.
I objected to his quoting answers.com and merriam-webster.com to show
that the GPL contains illegal terms. I suggested that, since we have a
couple of hundred years or more of case law discussing when a contract
should be unenforceable due to illegality, Rjack ought to b
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack writes:
(I'm assuming that Rjack's recent sources of authority, namely,
answers.com and merriam-webster.com, will not suffice here.)
I had hoped after trying to teach you that the meaning of the
term "illegal" changed with a change contexts, that a little
somethin