Re: GPL and linking
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> At no point did I assume that the GPL was a statute, nor a
> magical creature.
>
> In other words, you're begging the question. (And arguing a
> straw man.)
I stand by my man, straw or otherwise. In any given jurisdiction
there are rather clear rules about how to extract meaning from the
available evidence of a contract between two parties (or more, if it's
a contract to form a corporation; thanks, Batist). If you profess to
be making a legal argument, then the rules, if any, that you seem to
be using are more appropriate for a statute or a magical creature of
copyright law. If you do not profess to be making a legal argument,
then we have nothing to disagree about.
Not even the Supreme Court Of Your Choice has the authority to set
those rules aside and make a contract mean what they think it ought to
mean; if they do, that's not a legal system, it's despotic prerogative
(cf. Lord Camden in Donaldson v. Beckett). And arguing in willful
ignorance of those rules is guaranteed to produce false conclusions
with a document as deliberately misleading as the GPL. Don't think
it's deliberate? Maybe the Indiana court will have something to say
about that. (And no, I have absolutely nothing to do with that suit.)
Cheers,
- Michael
Reply to: