On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 09:51:29PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander> On 9/12/05, Yorick Cool <yorick.cool@fundp.ac.be> wrote: Alexander> [...] Alexander> > Well, either you consider the FSF's positions are authoritative and then you have to Alexander> > accept them all (including the dynamic linking business), or you admit Alexander> > you can depart with any of their assertions. Alexander> Alexander> And where can I find more details on this rather curious legal doctrine? It's called logic. Or consistency. Take your pick. Alexander> > And, as an aside, in civil law at least, the court has full power as to how to qualify an Alexander> > act -- say it is a contract, or license, or whatever -- but is bound by the parties intent Alexander> > of the act's intended effects, in the limit of what the law allows. Alexander> Alexander> Oh yeah. As if FSF.org might sue me in my home EU court alleging GPL violation Alexander> regarding linking... Dream on. They have no balls. But just in case... per Rome Alexander> Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, I'll Alexander> simply trigger Alexander> straight-away US doctrine of copyright misuse (licensor's home law). Bye-bye Alexander> FSF's copyrights on [L]GPL'd works. Long live [L]GPL-copyright impotent FSF. You are aware that the FSF is not the only GPL licensor, right? -- Yorick Cool Chercheur au CRID Rempart de la Vierge, 5 B-5000 Namur Tel: + 32 (0)81 72 47 62 /+32 (0)81 51 37 75 Fax: + 32 (0)81 72 52 02
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature